Good, I'm glad you have sorted yourselves out and agreed to disagree, also thank you Dunc for your apology. It was getting pretty heated there for a while and I did contemplate banging your heads together, but I'm pleased it's not now necessary.
Play nice for a while now, eh ?

Mustardseedmama wrote:I haven't been around a lot lately, because I was starting to believe this really wasn't the place for me. Now I am QUITE CERTAIN.

Thank you all for the useful information I have been able to glean on this sight regarding "self" sufficientcy". I am a Christian, but I have tried very hard not to "offend" anyone here who doesn't share my beliefs by talking about them. I have noted that there is an awful lot of "Christian-Bashing" here, by people who didn't seem to care (indeed seemed to relish the idea of offending Christians).

So now I will take my leave, so that I can "mentally abuse" my child with Christian Devotions,...before I take her to our church-run school for a long day of having her brain stuffed with "utter nonsense",...like algebra, biology, language, and social studies....

(just so we're on the same page here----the screen door did not hit me while I was on my way out)

My sentiments exactly. I appreciate we have freed om of speach in this country but there is a very fine line between this an religious harrasment. I think any person that states I am abusing my child because I chose to pass on religious teachings as facts, is bang out of order. Just s small notion that maybe some forum mebers woudl like to consider "All science was conceived as an idea before being proven". History of Christianity has never been disproven.

Whatever the rights or wrongs maybe,if you read through this thread,you'll see that mostly people agree with you,and more significantly Dunc has apologised for any offence.
The last time I read scripture I clearly missed the bit about rubbing someone's nose in it,but I'm sure I DID notice something about turning the other cheek.

Just a quick note back to the Registration policy. The policy is trying to be introduced as a result of a case where a child that was EHE (electively home educated) was denied access to social services and medical professionals before he sadly passed away through neglect. Now, I understand that this was a deeply saddening situation for all those involved but it can not be and never has been attributed to the fact that the child was EHE. There is no evidence to suggest that there is an increased occurance of domestic abuse in EHE children.

The policy is a knee jerk reaction to providing a means, and paperwork, to prove that the state have been monitoring any future EHE child that suffers neglect. The law states it is the responsability of the parent to ensure that their children are receiving "a full time education suitable to the age and ability of that child". Now most parents chose the state to provide this. However, there are number of parents that decide that this is not best for their child because the state cannot uphold this legal requirement when their children are sent to mainstream school. Some make the decision to EHE based on religious grounds, ethical grounds or even due to lack of spaces in an education establishments.

The law makes no mention of what is classified as a suitable education. So how can they effectively monitor EHE children to this effect. Bear in mind that welsh schools are inspected on a rotational basis and there can be upto 3-4 years between visits. Why should EHE parents be scrutinised with any increased frequency. The regulation of HE'ing is also very vague. Yes it is slippery slope of saying A to Z but the policy is putting the consent in place to regulate the teaching that EHE children receive. So will they force the national curriculum in? It is not a legal requirement. Will they say you can't teach religion as fact? Even though the state permits Church of Wales School, muslim schools, etc. Will they say that all education needs to be in designated classroom? We often learn outdoors, in parks, on the beach, or even on field trips.

So yes in principle I dont have an objection to the state knowing my children are EHE and I will and do allow the LEA access to my family. However, the proposals are so vague and open to manipulations that I am opposed to the policy as it stands. There are too many open statements that need to be fully addressed first.

Did you read about the issues with Madrasas? The after school Muslim schools which are entirely unregulated, registered or controlled. I bet that doesn't come to anything for fear of being accused of racist.

I'd like to hear some on here debate the factual status of Islamic teaching!

Live and let live I say.

Millymollymandy wrote:Bloody smilies, always being used. I hate them and they should be banned.
No I won't use a smiley because I've decided to turn into Boboff, as he's turned all nice all of a sudden. Grumble grumble.

Personnally I thought the interview with the Chap from the Muslim council was both informative and gave a very possitive view of the council, muslim's in general and Islam.

BUT dear George, that isn't the Daily Mails view now is it. That was the point I was making, it was your choice to insinuate some sort of Dullard cliche from it.

Did I mention anything about Nasi's in this thread?????????

Oh, yeah, I did, wow, sorry, Me Bad!

Millymollymandy wrote:Bloody smilies, always being used. I hate them and they should be banned.
No I won't use a smiley because I've decided to turn into Boboff, as he's turned all nice all of a sudden. Grumble grumble.

I still don't see the connection to Home Ed. As you describe, madrasahs in the UK are an extra-curicular activity* and subject to the same regulation as Sunday Schools - i.e. very little. So I'm unsure why you chose to throw the nuclear Islamic angle into the argument with hinted suggestions that they are above the law. Presumably it's in the hope of redirecting the thread in a more
acceptable anti-religious direction and hoping noone notices.

You can't see the connection between home Ed, and after school Madrasas, which often take place in people homes........

Do you know what George, what ever....

You obviously have an Agenda I was not aware of and are choosing to persue your arguement what ever I actually post.

Millymollymandy wrote:Bloody smilies, always being used. I hate them and they should be banned.
No I won't use a smiley because I've decided to turn into Boboff, as he's turned all nice all of a sudden. Grumble grumble.

Interesting.........half-baked proposal by some toothless,irrelevant Welsh legislature generates more heat(though not a lot of light) in this venerable forum than they've ever seen in that hideous Rogers building in Cardiff Bay !